21 replies to this topic

[mxax-ai]

I believe some of the fuel flows in the game are a little or more wrong. The A359 has a much higher FF than 333/343, and even the 789's FF is slightly higher. That is ridiculous because if that were reality, then airlines would be running for the 343 and more 333s than today. Both manufacturers claim their products had up to 25 % less fuel use. The major FF difference between the two A380 engine options also strikes me as odd, especially with the worse one having no advantage.

[Nexus8]

Along with the 727-200Adv is better than the 300

[mxax-ai]

Had thought of adding that one, but remembered that the 733 is a bit bigger than the 73Adv. That could explain the difference. (though the 73Adv is still too good imho)

[Nexus8]

I thought of the the 732 as an inefficent 737 like a small 707

[ThreeGreen83]

I can tell you for certain the ERJ-145 series numbers are WAY off... considering I fly it for a living... our cruise burn tends to be 1250-1350 / engine / hour.... so roughly 2500 to 2700 lbs per hour..... the game has it over 6000 and the CRJ-200 is down in the 2k range... talk about making it impossible for me to choose my favorite RJ for my airlines and instead I'm forced to cram my fake passengers in my least favorite RJ

[Northern]

Lets hope the developers can sort the fuel flows out

[Sheepy]

I believe the game tends to disfavour aircraft with higher maximum thrusts, as for the purpose of fuel flow, 'thrust' is calculated based on full thrust all the time, iirc.

[ThreeGreen83]

While i won't argue they're off, I've never found the ERJ that hard to turn a profit on.   (I'm also a fan of them given their general look and superficial similarities with E-120s )

Yeah, I've made profit with them and haven't had issue there.. it's more that the biz side of me still chooses the CRJ-200 vs the ERJ-145 simply based on operating specs... in the game it heavily favors the CRJ.... I just wish the ERJ would be brought more in line with the real values and closer to the CRJ to reflect the nominal difference between the two..............  btw, TOTALLY agree with you, the ERJ is a great looking plane   Especially the XR (my fav. to fly too) 

 

I believe the game tends to disfavour aircraft with higher maximum thrusts, as for the purpose of fuel flow, 'thrust' is calculated based on full thrust all the time, iirc.

Totally fine... since at altitude the aircraft is near full thrust anyway... that said... it correlates to a huge difference in burn because of atmospheric differences between SL and cruise alt... 

[Keelung]

I think the problem that developers face is that they would have to research on theoretical fuel burn data and sometimes even make assumptions. I think it would be best if the developers are willing to ask people in our community what the actual operating data is and certainly many of you who work in airlines would be able to disclose some data.

[Sheepy]

I fail to see an issue with making logical assumptions that are more logical than the calculated data based on flawed calculations?

[Sheepy]

"It takes more time!"

 

Like getting real TSFC is always super easy...

 

And this is my 1500th post.

I probably could have it more productive than this, but ah well.

[ar157]

so back to the op, wouldn't the A359 have a higher fuel burn than the 333/343 seeing as it is quite a bit heavier and has more thrust? from memory, the A359 is quite a bit larger and if anything the 343 ff is substantially screwed up.

[Sheepy]

The 343 definitely burns more than a 333. 

45-47k seems a reasonable figure for the 343...

[mxax-ai]

so back to the op, wouldn't the A359 have a higher fuel burn than the 333/343 seeing as it is quite a bit heavier and has more thrust? from memory, the A359 is quite a bit larger and if anything the 343 ff is substantially screwed up.

According to WP, the A350-900 and it's wings are 4 m longer and the fuselage 40 cm wider than the A330-300. Depite this size difference the A359 has a 7 t lighter empty weight but a 35 t heavier MTOW. To compensate for that, the engines have 25% more thrust on the A350, but are also newer.
The A350 has a speed advantage against the A330 in AE. If fuel flow is measured in pounds/hour, it might actually burn less fuel per kilometer than the A333 because of it's higher speed. The only problem is the capacity. According to the Airbus website: "All A350 XWB Family members can be configured for higher density layouts of up to 440 seats. ", so they should all have a limit of at least 440 pax, with the A35J possibly having a higher limit.

[mxax-ai]

Edit: double post

[Sheepy]

According to WP, the A350-900 and it's wings are 4 m longer and the fuselage 40 cm wider than the A330-300. Depite this size difference the A359 has a 7 t lighter empty weight but a 35 t heavier MTOW. To compensate for that, the engines have 25% more thrust on the A350, but are also newer.
The A350 has a speed advantage against the A330 in AE. If fuel flow is measured in pounds/hour, it might actually burn less fuel per kilometer than the A333 because of it's higher speed. The only problem is the capacity. According to the Airbus website: "All A350 XWB Family members can be configured for higher density layouts of up to 440 seats. ", so they should all have a limit of at least 440 pax, with the A35J possibly having a higher limit.

This drives us back to the problem with the 737s. I believe it's the 736 and 73G that have the issue, whereby both have the same number of maximum seats, but the smaller variant, the 736, has a lower fuel burn...

However Brit tends to respond with "I was only doing my job"...

[Delta Force]

In game it is best to purchase the engines with the lowest fuel flow, but real airlines have other factors to consider. For example, having engines from the same family across the fleet simplifies maintenance, and in some cases it is cheaper to have a more reliable engine than an efficient one. The MD-90 and MD-95/Boeing 717 didn't use the most efficient engines but airlines did find their reliability to be a major advantage over the Embraers and Bombardiers.

[Sheepy]

Indeed, though there are fixed take off/landing fuel burn numbers worth considering.

[Northern]

The thing that confuses me is jet the RB211s were favoured by most on the 757 because the were the better more efficient engines, however on AE there second to the pratts

[Sheepy]

Because the P&Ws have such a low power, they consume 20% less fuel than the RRs.

According to AE.